• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文学位 >Evolution and the developmental perspective in medicine: The historical precedent and modern rationale for explaining disorder and normality with evolutionary processes.
【24h】

Evolution and the developmental perspective in medicine: The historical precedent and modern rationale for explaining disorder and normality with evolutionary processes.

机译：医学的进化和发展视角：用进化过程解释疾病和正常性的历史先例和现代理论。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

This is a mostly historical project in which I ask first, what is the origin and nature of evolutionary thought in medicine? The answer is in the late nineteenth century neurosciences, where it helped to explain clinical phenomena that indicated pathology was more an intricate process than an anatomical fact. This view of pathology was grounded in evolutionary theory, and was theoretically elaborated by the philosopher Georges Canguilhem in the mid-twentieth century. He was greatly influenced by the neurologists that preceded him in his perspective, but Canguilhem has a distinctly Darwinian angle.;In the second part of the dissertation, I introduce examples from contemporary Evolutionary-Developmental Biology (Evo-Devo) to argue that a modern definition of disorder that is based on a notion of normality as an implicit 'ideal' proves inadequate given new discoveries about how adaptation and variation are inextricably linked to the developmental phenomena Evo-Devo explores. The historical precedent of thinking about normality and pathology as linked with evolutionary processes proves apt once again, given recent emphasis in evolutionary biology on the relationship between individual development and evolutionary change.;The developmental perspective possesses a significance that is appropriately captured by a diagram most recently elaborated by Randolph Nesse (2000) in which he identifies the nature of biological questions as based on four intersecting elements. The two objects of explanation are the Single Form, and the Developmental/Historical; the two kinds of questions are Proximate and Evolutionary. There is much precedent in medicine for proximate questions about the Single Form object of explanation: how does this (organ, system, part) work, and how can it be described? Nesse himself, and George Williams spearheaded the evolutionary questioning of the Single Form in Darwinian Medicine. The fact that there is another object of explanation (Developmental/Historical) recognized in biology is reason to inquire about its status in medicine. It is the aim of this dissertation to do that. Specifically, I will narrow the topic by looking through the lens of medicine's most visible distinction, that between pathology and normality, to see where and how the developmental perspective gets involved.
机译：这是一个主要是历史性的研究项目，我首先要问医学进化思想的起源和本质是什么？答案是在19世纪后期的神经科学中，它帮助解释了表明病理学比解剖学事实更为复杂的过程的临床现象。这种病理学观点以进化论为基础，并在二十世纪中叶由哲学家乔治·坎圭尔姆（Georges Canguilhem）在理论上加以阐述。在他看来，他受到了先于他的神经学家的影响，但坎奎尔姆却有着明显的达尔文主义观点。在论文的第二部分，我介绍了当代进化-发展生物学（Evo-Devo）的例子来论证现代鉴于关于适应和变异如何与Evo-Devo探索的发展现象密不可分的联系的新发现，基于正常性概念作为隐性“理想”的疾病定义被证明是不充分的。考虑到进化生物学最近强调个体发展与进化变化之间的关系，将正常性和病理学与进化过程联系起来的历史先例再次得到证明。兰道夫·内塞（Randolph Nesse）（2000）的最新研究成果，他根据四个相交元素确定了生物学问题的性质。解释的两个对象是“单一形式”和“发展/历史”。这两种问题是近义问题和进化问题。在医学上有很多先例可以解释单一形式的解释对象：它（器官，系统，器官）如何起作用，以及如何描述？内塞本人和乔治·威廉姆斯（George Williams）率先提出了达尔文医学单一形式的进化论质询。生物学中存在另一个解释对象（发展的/历史的）这一事实，是询问其在医学中的地位的原因。这是本文的目的。具体而言，我将通过医学上最明显的区别（病理学和正常性之间的区别）来观察这个话题，以了解在哪里以及如何涉及发展视角。

著录项

  • 作者

    Feil, Kiersten.;

  • 作者单位

    The University of Chicago.;

  • 授予单位 The University of Chicago.;
  • 学科 Philosophy.;Health Sciences General.;History of Science.
  • 学位 Ph.D.
  • 年度 2006
  • 页码 249 p.
  • 总页数 249
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类 哲学理论;预防医学、卫生学;自然科学史;
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号